It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Web Buckling, Intel says...

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Story here

[edit on 9/10/2004 by Montana]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Montana Still, with the way we are all experiencing slow-downs and site unavailability, something needs to be done.
What? Slow-downs? Site unavailability? I'm not aware of these? People have been trying to improve the Internet for 10 years. This is nothing new. In 1996, many "experts" predicted it would simply not function at 50% of today's traffic levels... much less where we are now.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp. (Nasdaq:INTC - news) on Thursday outlined its vision of the Internet of the future, one in which millions of computer servers would analyze and direct network traffic to make the Web safer and more efficient.
Intel plans to play a major part in developing a new Web infrastructure based on computer servers running on its chips.
The current Internet, based on technology developed in the 1970s, will begin to buckle under the weight of millions of new computer users from developing nations, Chief Technology Officer Patrick Gelsinger said at a company-sponsored technical conference.
"We're running up on some architectural limitations," Gelsinger said.


So is this internet 3 or 4? I think I've lost count.

This latest version is another layer that sits on top of the current internet. Is it time to replace the Inet with a whole new infrastructure? As the story says, the internet is still running on 1970's tech. I think maybe it's time to relace it. Anyone have any ideas? What tech should a new internet be based on?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Well aren't we already immproving the internet? With Internet2? More ip allocations, more efficient architechure or something or other, sending less packets int he headers, etc...

I dont know how that works becaue i thought that if you have more ip allocations, then that means the headers would have to be bigger... so increasing traffic...



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
True, SO, true. Still, if they are trying to improve the internet, when do we just replace it with something new?

Patches on patches get unstable pretty quickly.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Well aren't we already immproving the internet? With Internet2? More ip allocations, more efficient architechure or something or other, sending less packets int he headers, etc...

I dont know how that works becaue i thought that if you have more ip allocations, then that means the headers would have to be bigger... so increasing traffic...


I2 was still just another layer over top of the existing tech, if I underrstand it correctly. How many layers before we bake a new cake?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I just think this is another way of Intel trying to make money. The Internet works pretty damn well for me and I would like to see an improvement, but not one where intel benefits directly.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I don't think there will be any kind of 'baking a new cake' ever in regards to the internet, simply because its grown so large a mass switch to say some new protocol other than TCP/IP would be insane at best. Its better to go in steps, such as moving from IPv4 to IPv6, which more places really should do. Besides, imagine telling IPSs everywhere that their 1000$ Cisco Switches and Routers are all worthless and that they have to go out and purchase new ones, it would not be a pleasant thing, as you would have alot of them balking at the refit costs



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
I just think this is another way of Intel trying to make money. The Internet works pretty damn well for me and I would like to see an improvement, but not one where intel benefits directly.



From what I've seen, Intel likes to stick with the status quo too much. If it wasn't for other chip makers pushing the envelope, we'd still be running i386's. 'Course the speed would be a couple of ghz's! I'd sure like to see some new networking tech used.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 10:07 AM
link   
*sigh*...

Another piece of propoganda from Intel.

IPV6 solves the "number of devices" problem. Simple.

A couple of good ways to increase throughput for the Internet is:

1) Stop spam (MAJOR problem)
2) Have hardware based automatic compression/de-compression built into ALL end-node routers or computers (or the last device that is closest to the OS). I suspect this is what Intel wants...



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I agree that spam is a large problem. The bandwidth it takes up clogs the pipes for all the other traffic. Other than taking spammers out and shooting them (my personal favorite!) what kind of restraints can be placed on them? Should we limit the number of emails per day allowed per IP? An online version of the national do-not-call- list wouldn't work as spammers are spread around the world, not just in one country making monitoring and enforcement impossible. Maybe a block list at the node level. Then any identified spammer would be unable to post outside the local level.

Doing anything would be better than nothing, I suppose. The problem is only going to get worse, and will have to be solved sometime. Whoever can find the solution will make LOTS of money I'm thinking!



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I dunno... I just sorta find it hard to take Intel seriously in this case.

I mean, they make chips that are used in many of the components of the current internet, not to mention internet 2.

So, of course they would say that current stuff is going to prevent the internet from functioning and encourage investment in new servers and whatnot. Those new servers likely use at least some of those chips, and will bring up the tech sector, and hopefully them.

The bottom line is that tech haven't been able to gain much ground. People are somewhat iffy on jumping into buying new computer products because what we have seems to be working pretty well. No new Windows has come out, and most computers now have all the horsepower they need to run that. Not to mention that Linux is letting people do even more with what they already have. So, no one is buying.

This whole thing seems fishy to me.

It's like a gun manufactuer telling people that robberies are on the rise, and people needs to start taking self defense more seriously. Sure, it's probably true, but what are the motives of the person talking? You know?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
k, so if you put another layer on top of something that is allegedly breaking down it will be better? or is it a way for intel to prop up its bottom line by shipping more chips?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Yeah, that was kinda my thoughts. I think rather than spending money on patches, lets take the time to replace the physical web with updated tech. What that would be, I have no idea. Any techs on here that might enlighten us ignorants?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join